Daniel Barclay wrote:
> Regarding the draft at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/:
>
> Section 3.11.5 says:
>
> ...
> A Â·node tableÂ· with one entry for every Â·key-sequenceÂ·
> (call it k) and node (call it n) such that one of the
> following must be true: ...
>
> That should probably say "... such that one of the following is
> true..."
>
> (Saying "such that some condition _must_ _be_ true" specifies
> something different (e.g., that things are such that some
> other, unspecified rule applies and requires that condition to
> be true).)
>
>
> ...
Also, section 3.15.3 has a multiply nested instance of the same
problem [emphasizing underlines are added]:
The appropriate case among the following _must_ be true:
1 If its Â·normalized valueÂ· is prefixed, then all of the
following _must_ be true:
1.1 There _must_ be a namespace in the [in-scope namespaces]
whose [prefix] matches the prefix.
1.2 its Â·namespace nameÂ· _is_ the [namespace name] of that
namespace.
1.3 Its Â·local nameÂ· _is_ the portion of its Â·normalized valueÂ·
after the colon (':').
2 otherwise (its Â·normalized valueÂ· is unprefixed) all of the
following _must_ be true:
2.1 its Â·local nameÂ· _is_ its Â·normalized valueÂ·.
2.2 The appropriate case among the following _must be true:
2.2.1 If there is a namespace in the [in-scope namespaces]
whose [prefix] has no value, then its Â·namespace nameÂ·
_is_ the [namespace name] of that namespace.
2.2.2 otherwise its Â·namespace nameÂ· _is_ Â·absentÂ·.
I think the initial "the appropriate case...must be true" needs
to not say that the case is true but somehow say that the rule
for the appropriate case applies.
(In fact, the introductory sentence doesn't seem to be needed
grammatically or logically. One can say simply "If condition 1
is true, then thing 1 must be true; otherwise, if condition 2
applies, then thing 2 must be true." Since an introductory
sentence apparently is needed so the "if..." and "otherwise..."
can be numbered, it should probably be worded in a way that
doesn't change the overall logic (saying that something
must be required to be true instead of just saying that it
must be true).)
Additionally, item 2.2 with a "must" doesn't seem right given
that its sibling 2.1 says "is."
Daniel